4K displays announced at CES 2011

[Shifty Geezer]

Also, given that NHK & BBC are working on "Super Hi Vision" which is 16x the resolution of HD (8k*4k res), maybe 4K will just be a backwater.

Surely that's for specialists bropadcast (cinema) only? The whole 1080p screen size issue, where 4k won't be a perceivable improvement in many households with <50" screens, is a bottleneck for 4k adoption. Will 8k*4k res (should we start calling screensizes in megapixels? ) ever be perceivable on anything other than cinema screens? Plus they should sort out their crappy 24 fps framerate first!

 

[Davros]

another thing we are not seeing in regard to pc monitors is the move to 120hz for 3d apart from a few models monitors seem to be staying at 60hz

 

[Neb]

... Plus they should sort out their crappy 24 fps framerate first!

Exactly. Even if you can smooth out it on PC while playing movie to get 30fps it's always better when it's native 30fps. 24/25fps is just a shame and they dont even go for dual-layer Blu-rays either.. tsss.

 

[Neb]

another thing we are not seeing in regard to pc monitors is the move to 120hz for 3d apart from a few models monitors seem to be staying at 60hz

3D has never been that popular with PC platform as evidence of Nvidia having 3D support since years ago and other vendors/GPUs even over 10 years ago experimented with it. Also most would just likely connect the PC to the 3D HDTV and use that to display movies thus no 120Hz 3D ready monitor needed.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

another thing we are not seeing in regard to pc monitors is the move to 120hz for 3d apart from a few models monitors seem to be staying at 60hz

If Nvidia ever gets off their lazy arses and implements support for Displayport we might start to see DirectDrive displays. With the cost savings from those there might be a chance monitor makers in that cutthroat market will be inclined to apply those cost savings to support for greater than 60 Hz refresh.

We now have both Intel and AMD implementing widespread adoption for DP, so just need Nvidia to catch up. As well with DP 1.2 we can actually take advantage of 2560x1600 120 Hz, something not possible with either DVI or HDMI.

Regards,
SB

 

[Davros]

I think its the monitor manufactures that need to keep up, been considering eyfinity and therefore looking for a display port monitor and they are hard to find
there are still a lot of monitors that are d-sub only

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Until all major GPU vendors (AMD, Nvidia, and Intel) support DP, there's not as much incentive for display manufacturers to include DP interfaces on anything but their most expensive monitors.

When you get down to the budget and mainstream monitors, competition is fierce and margins low. Including DP puts your product at a disadvantage if it increases cost AND you can only target a fraction of the market with it (the cost increasing DP port).

DirectDrive monitors could be made more cheaply, but then you have the problem that you've now cut yourself off from everything that doesn't have DP.

Adoption was slow when AMD was the only major player supporting DP. I'd imagine adoption of DP will accelerate now that DP support is included in Sandy Bridge. If for no other reason than the fact that now makes it instantly viable for more more coporate machines and thus opens up large contract bulk purchases from OEMs.

Nvidia jumping in would help accelerate adoption in the budget and mainstream markets. I could understand them skipping it in GF100 based cards, but I find it absolutely inexcuseable that they skipped it in GF110 based cards also.

Regards,
SB

 

[Davros]

not sure how long have gfx cards been dvi only (unless you use an adapter)
still a lot of monitors that only have d-sub iirc it would be cheaper to just have dvi so why are they doing this ?

 

[AlphaWolf]

not sure how long have gfx cards been dvi only (unless you use an adapter)
still a lot of monitors that only have d-sub iirc it would be cheaper to just have dvi so why are they doing this ?

There's still a lot of video cards for sale that come with the d-sub. And I expect if there was a count it's probably still the dominant method of connection.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

not sure how long have gfx cards been dvi only (unless you use an adapter)
still a lot of monitors that only have d-sub iirc it would be cheaper to just have dvi so why are they doing this ?

Businesses. There are still a lot of machines in a lot of businesses that are d-sub only. Even if they are being gradually phased out it's easier for a business or corporation to buy monitors that are either d-sub only or have a d-sub in conjunction with other connectors for greater interoperability..

As well, third world countries will have a greater preponderance of d-sub only machines as many of the machines that are phased out from large corporations can be repurposed and resold in those countries to either consumers, government, schools, etc...

Regards,
SB

 

[Kurt]

D-sub only being cheaper had to do with "DVI tax" for TVs, at least here in Europe.

 

[Davros]

wow didnt know there was a dvi tax

 

[MarkoIt]

What is the point of supporting 4K? It's really needed just on big sized displays, which aren't that common today. And by the way, glasses based 3D will fail. Expect it to return by 2014-2015 with glasses-free (and headache free) 4K OLED display (finally!). I can see next-next generation console supporting it, since i think in the next decade the displays will get bigger and bigger in our living room.

 

[nutball]

What is the point of supporting 4K?

I have a Dell 30" monitor on my desktop, native res is 2560x1600. It's OK, but it could be better. Amongst others things it could be to be better are that it could be:

A) a bit bigger. Yes, you heard me, it could do with being a bit bigger. I guess I could sit a bit closer, but that would defeat the point and/or would require it to have...
B) a bit higher DPI. Because I can see the anti-aliasing on the text, it gives me a headache. Tricks like Cleartype are great and all that but aren't really a substitute for more pixels.

So yeah, I can quite happily see a use for a 4k 32"/34" display right in front of me.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That's for productivity though on a desktop sat close to. What's the point of 4k for movies and games except on extra large screens where the resolution will actually be perceptible?

 

[nutball]

None. On that I would happily agree for movies.

I do play games though so I'd expect any graphics card I owned to be capable of driving such a display. A large display placed close is a much more immersive experience than a however-many-inch HDTV sat across the other side of the room, I'd contend.

 

[Davros]

A) a bit bigger. Yes, you heard me, it could do with being a bit bigger. I guess I could sit a bit closer, but that would defeat the point and/or would require it to have...

B) No No NO you need
C) http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/6541015234/p/1

more info here: http://www.tacticalneuronics.com/content/Fresnel.asp

Although and this is very serious so pay attention
I feel compelled to repeat the warning from the above web site

WARNING: Once you start using this you will never be able to go back to your boring 2D flat monitor again!

 

[nutball]

So basically you're saying I need to strap on the HUGE SPECTACULAR SPECTACLES to make everything in my life bigger and look like it's closer?!

 

[Silent_Buddha]

B) No No NO you need
C) http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/6541015234/p/1

Heh, looking through that brought me to something else I'd rather have.

http://www.force-dynamics.com/index.php

I don't even want to know how much those cost.

Regards,
SB

 

[Davros]

So basically you're saying I need to strap on the HUGE SPECTACULAR SPECTACLES to make everything in my life bigger and look like it's closer?!

with some things you could hurt your back